I think you’re right these theories need to be revisited. The military should be nonpartisan. But it also cannot ignore a domestic threat to the Constitution just because that threat is partisan. The GOP is currently forcing the military to choose between its nonpartisanship norm and its duty to protect the Constitution. It’s a bad spot for military leadership to be in.
I don't disagree, but as someone with a political science/policy background, that niggling question of *who* gets to define *domestic threat* and what measures are taken are what vex me.
Because the way I interpret my onetime oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, domestic threat compels active resistance in the form of asserting the non-legitimacy of the executive branch. Isn't that just about the only effective sanction in the final nightmare scenario?
People suspect me of being all radical because I bring this up. But historically stuff like civil wars tend to turn on questions where sincere folk can't agree, but someone starts shooting anyway.
This is why I sincerely hope, no matter what happens in the wake of the upcoming election, regardless of any and all theory, military leaders refuse to become involved at any level. In the worse case presume no orders are legit and act as if the last were valid - hold the line and wait for the domestic process to work itself out. The Insurrection Act scares me, and so do Team Blue types who I'm personally sympathetic towards (West Coast will vote 2:1 Harris over Trump) talking about coups and the end of liberal democracy. Because to me, that means something very nasty.
And I've been studying the fighting in Ukraine a lot.
I think the U.S. military is a rigid institution. One of those rigidities is, don’t get involved in domestic elections. I doubt that will change with this election. The worst case scenario in my mind would be a Red State governor trying to deploy the National Guard to their state (or even another state) under the guise of election fraud or some other shenanigans. I’m not sure what you do than (either as a political or military leader)…
To me, the realistic worst case scenario is one where governors in a bunch of states have to call out the National Guard. Then whoever is in the White House tries to federalize a response under the Insurrection Act. Suddenly you've got senior officers being told by an authority with compromised legitimacy trying to work out what's legal. I do not know where this ends, but I hope paralysis.
I strongly doubt that Americans have the guts to actually go to war, fortunately. Few enough have the skills. I see all this partisan rhetoric as dangerous nonsense driven by systemic issues which are throwing the USA into a potentially terminal crisis leading to, at worst, separation.
But the one scenario I can see leading to actual organized violence is a mess where the tension between the two theories you present intersects with partisanship. The contemporary tendency to believe the Constitution says whatever each partisan team wants it to creates a serious strategic vulnerability.
I think you’re right these theories need to be revisited. The military should be nonpartisan. But it also cannot ignore a domestic threat to the Constitution just because that threat is partisan. The GOP is currently forcing the military to choose between its nonpartisanship norm and its duty to protect the Constitution. It’s a bad spot for military leadership to be in.
I don't disagree, but as someone with a political science/policy background, that niggling question of *who* gets to define *domestic threat* and what measures are taken are what vex me.
Because the way I interpret my onetime oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, domestic threat compels active resistance in the form of asserting the non-legitimacy of the executive branch. Isn't that just about the only effective sanction in the final nightmare scenario?
People suspect me of being all radical because I bring this up. But historically stuff like civil wars tend to turn on questions where sincere folk can't agree, but someone starts shooting anyway.
This is why I sincerely hope, no matter what happens in the wake of the upcoming election, regardless of any and all theory, military leaders refuse to become involved at any level. In the worse case presume no orders are legit and act as if the last were valid - hold the line and wait for the domestic process to work itself out. The Insurrection Act scares me, and so do Team Blue types who I'm personally sympathetic towards (West Coast will vote 2:1 Harris over Trump) talking about coups and the end of liberal democracy. Because to me, that means something very nasty.
And I've been studying the fighting in Ukraine a lot.
I think the U.S. military is a rigid institution. One of those rigidities is, don’t get involved in domestic elections. I doubt that will change with this election. The worst case scenario in my mind would be a Red State governor trying to deploy the National Guard to their state (or even another state) under the guise of election fraud or some other shenanigans. I’m not sure what you do than (either as a political or military leader)…
I generally agree.
To me, the realistic worst case scenario is one where governors in a bunch of states have to call out the National Guard. Then whoever is in the White House tries to federalize a response under the Insurrection Act. Suddenly you've got senior officers being told by an authority with compromised legitimacy trying to work out what's legal. I do not know where this ends, but I hope paralysis.
I strongly doubt that Americans have the guts to actually go to war, fortunately. Few enough have the skills. I see all this partisan rhetoric as dangerous nonsense driven by systemic issues which are throwing the USA into a potentially terminal crisis leading to, at worst, separation.
But the one scenario I can see leading to actual organized violence is a mess where the tension between the two theories you present intersects with partisanship. The contemporary tendency to believe the Constitution says whatever each partisan team wants it to creates a serious strategic vulnerability.
Would a scenario like that develop into deployment of the regular army, circa Little Rock in 1957?